I'm a little perplexed when reading this dharma talk by Master Hsuan Hua, link provided below. According to his words, a person who remarried will be sawed into multiple pieces according to the remarried times? And also, a person could be be splitted into multiple mosquitoes? Could someone shed some light on this?

Sexual misconduct: In terms of causes and effects, sexual misconduct is the most serious offense. It’s punishment is the most severe. If a married couple gets divorced and each one remarries, then according to the law of cause and effect, their bodies will be cut in half after they die. This is because when they were alive, they had two relationships. So after they die, their karmic retribution manifests. A huge saw slices people in half from head to toe. Their bodies are sawed into as many pieces as the number of offenses they committed. If they were married a hundred times, they are sawed into a hundred pieces, so each of their former partners can have a tiny share of them. What’s so bad about being divided into pieces? If the soul becomes fragmented like that, it’s very difficult to make it whole again. Probably those people won’t regain a human body again for billions of eons. When their nature is split and their souls are incomplete, they become dull and insentient, like plants. When their inherent nature is scattered, it’s hard to become a sentient being again. Even if they became a sentient being, they might be a mosquito. But one human body can transform into 84,000 mosquitoes, and it’s not easy to get all those mosquitoes back into one being. Most of the time, mosquitoes are reborn as mosquitoes. So they bob up and down in the cycle of birth and death, not understanding how to turn away from the dust and unite with enlightenment, or how to renounce confusion and return to the proper. It’s said, "Once the human body is lost, it cannot be regained in ten thousand eons." If you truly understand this principle, how could you not be afraid?

While the effects of sexual misconduct might be severe but even more severe for non-practitioners because they are not backed by their merits. If practitioners have accumulated great merits, the effects of an offense will be lessen. The analogy of putting a handful of salt into the river-the river being merits and the handful of salt being an an offense. The more we practice, the more stable we become as my dad said.

NAMO AMITABHANAM MO A DI DA PHAT (VIETNAMESE)NAMO AMITUOFO (CHINESE)Linjii―Listen! Those of you who devote yourselves to the Dharma must not be afraid of losing your bodies and your lives―

Aemilius wrote:It is with same meaning in Bhikkhuni Utpalavanna's translations that are in Fodian.net...

It is the exact same series of translations with those you linked to at the mahindaramatemple, only the later do not state who the translator is. I imagine that they just lifted the Bhikkhuni Utpalavanna translations so I would not say that it is a source of corroboration.

The E.M. Hare translation (the follow on in the series of translations started by Woodard) from the PTS matches the translation given by Andyn.

Consciousness is momentary. Karma and dependent origination works on the basis of causal relationship between moments of consciousness. Splitting the stream of consciousness into multiple causal chains would mean that at the beginning there would be three identical beings, however, three of the same thing is just one thing, as at the time of one stream splitting into three new streams all three would have the same causal past making them identical. That's why I don't think one being becoming a multiple being is logical. This does not apply to emanations and magical multiplication since in those cases there are no multiple beings.

"There is no such thing as the real mind. Ridding yourself of delusion: that's the real mind."(Sheng-yen: Getting the Buddha Mind, p 73)

Astus wrote:Consciousness is momentary. Karma and dependent origination works on the basis of causal relationship between moments of consciousness. Splitting the stream of consciousness into multiple causal chains would mean that at the beginning there would be three identical beings, however, three of the same thing is just one thing, as at the time of one stream splitting into three new streams all three would have the same causal past making them identical. That's why I don't think one being becoming a multiple being is logical. This does not apply to emanations and magical multiplication since in those cases there are no multiple beings.

I think that is still grasping at a real "I", if you think that one of the three is the real "you" and the others are "his" emanations. You can think of identical twins that have been split from one ovum, they are very similar or identical to begin with, but they are different beings, and they can develop into different directions in the course of their life.

In a similar manner a stream of consciousness could easily split into two or three, etc.., which are similar to begin with, but which then develope into different and distinct beings.You think that you have a real and independent "I", but that is refuted in the Dharma. Why would the teachings say there is no real "I"?There is some discussion about this issue in the Samdhi Nirmocana sutra and the Lankavatara sutra, i.e. is there a real and original Buddha/Bodhisattva, which is somehow more real than his emanations? And what is the actual nature between the originator and his emanations? There must be teachings about this, somewhere in the Dharma, it is not a new question.

Nagarjuna and other Madhyamikas critisize the human tendency of absolutizing the Tathagata. Buddha, Tathagata and Bodhisattva are also empty of inherent existence, runs the Madhyamaka credo.

Aemilius wrote:It is with same meaning in Bhikkhuni Utpalavanna's translations that are in Fodian.net...

It is the exact same series of translations with those you linked to at the mahindaramatemple, only the later do not state who the translator is. I imagine that they just lifted the Bhikkhuni Utpalavanna translations so I would not say that it is a source of corroboration.

The E.M. Hare translation (the follow on in the series of translations started by Woodard) from the PTS matches the translation given by Andyn.

Have you read the whole story of Kakudha Thera's death? It is highly interesting, it seems there is something shamefull or something potentially harmfull for the public image and reputation of Tathagata, in what Mogallana has found out. If Kakudha Thera is born in the form of two or three Magadhan farmers in a heaven, it would make more sense. It reveals his deepest wishes, and a farmer is a low class working man, which doesn't sound too good for an enlightened person Kakudha, or maybe enlightened and then somewhat misbehaved Kakudha. That is why Bhikkhuni Utpalavanna's translation makes more sense, to my mind.

Selflessness doesn't mean "anything goes". There is also dependent origination, strict causality, the actual explanation of the lack of any permanent self. Saying that from a single karmic stream multiple streams can emerge is illogical because there would have to be a moment where three consciousness are exactly the same because they have the same causes. The same cause creating three different results at the same time is a violation of causality. Again, I'm not talking about any one of the three being the real self or all three being the real self, but simple causal relations.

The example of monozygotic twins don't fully match for it takes time for the cell to split and then develop different bodies, therefore there is not a single moment when from one thing two different things occur, unlike in moments of consciousness.

"There is no such thing as the real mind. Ridding yourself of delusion: that's the real mind."(Sheng-yen: Getting the Buddha Mind, p 73)

Selflessness doesn't mean "anything goes". There is also dependent origination, strict causality, the actual explanation of the lack of any permanent self. Saying that from a single karmic stream multiple streams can emerge is illogical because there would have to be a moment where three consciousness are exactly the same because they have the same causes. The same cause creating three different results at the same time is a violation of causality. Again, I'm not talking about any one of the three being the real self or all three being the real self, but simple causal relations.

There is no violation of causality in one stream becoming three steams, there has to be a cause for this split, naturally. It can happen in the case of ordinary persons too, there is the phenomenon of split personality, also called schizophrenia, in psychology. It can happen to healthy persons too, without the label of schitzophrenia. It may happen that a person has a wide spectrum of different karmic potentialities, which cannot mature in a single stream, in a single life. Because of this the person's karmic stream splits into two, or three, simultaneous and parallel lives.

There is a factor of chance and a factor of "free will", causation is not deterministic. Factors of chance and free will have the effect that the three streams will be different (even if they were similar to start with, which is not necessarily the case). Causation is not absolute, this is emphasized in the saying of Nagarjuna: "If everything was dependent on the past, it would be in the past". Because there is chance, imprecision and "free will", everything was not already in the past.

Last edited by Aemilius on Tue Mar 19, 2013 3:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Astus wrote:The example of monozygotic twins don't fully match for it takes time for the cell to split and then develop different bodies, therefore there is not a single moment when from one thing two different things occur, unlike in moments of consciousness.

Schizophrenia is not about more than one being existing in the same body, and multiple beings don't exist within the same mind. Even the name of the illness that you meant is Dissociative Identity Disorder, defined as "a disorder characterized by identity fragmentation rather than a proliferation of separate personalities" (source).

Analysis to the level of emptiness does not refute dependent origination on the phenomenal level. If you say that causality is not a fundamental law then anything can come from anything and reason(ing) has no meaning at all. Causation means there must always be a cause for an effect. If there is no cause there is no causality and we are back at the previous point about anything coming from anything/nothing. Will, intention, is at the heart of dependent origination as the defining factor of karma, very much within the law of cause and effect. An intention that is free from all causes would mean something coming out of nothing, plus it'd have the problem of becoming permanent and ineffective. Thus "free will" cannot be the cause for a split in the karmic stream.

"There is no such thing as the real mind. Ridding yourself of delusion: that's the real mind."(Sheng-yen: Getting the Buddha Mind, p 73)

If sexual misconduct induces the harshest repercussions, then it should have been included in the five heinous crimes, but its not. Bhikkhu Dhammika's article does not indicate that either.

If you believe certain words, you believe their hidden arguments. When you believe something is right or wrong, true of false, you believe the assumptions in the words which express the arguments. Such assumptions are often full of holes, but remain most precious to the convinced.

Aemilius wrote:Have you read the whole story of Kakudha Thera's death? It is highly interesting, it seems there is something shamefull or something potentially harmfull for the public image and reputation of Tathagata, in what Mogallana has found out. If Kakudha Thera is born in the form of two or three Magadhan farmers in a heaven, it would make more sense. It reveals his deepest wishes, and a farmer is a low class working man, which doesn't sound too good for an enlightened person Kakudha, or maybe enlightened and then somewhat misbehaved Kakudha. That is why Bhikkhuni Utpalavanna's translation makes more sense, to my mind.

The "two or three Magadhan farmers" is a terrible mistranslation. See entry #3 in this URL:

. Kakudha.-Probably identical with Kakudha (2). He was an inhabitant of Koliya and was an attendant of Moggallāna. Having died, he was reborn among the mind-born (Manomaya) devas and his form was so great that it was as extensive as "two of three common rice-fields in a Magadha village, and yet so constituted that he was in the way neither of himself nor of others."

Becoming aware of Devadatta's plans for obtaining possession of the leadership of the Sangha, Kakudha reported the news to Moggallāna, who passed it on to the Buddha. The Buddha asked Moggallāna to keep the matter secret. Moggallāna informed the Buddha that he knew from experience that Kakudha's predictions proved true (Vin.ii.185f).

If you believe certain words, you believe their hidden arguments. When you believe something is right or wrong, true of false, you believe the assumptions in the words which express the arguments. Such assumptions are often full of holes, but remain most precious to the convinced.

The "two or three Magadhan farmers" is a terrible mistranslation. See entry #3 in this URL:

Just realized that Andyn posted that quote from the same website a few posts back.

Here is what Bhikkhu Bodhi translated:

Thus have I heard. On one occasion the Blessed One was dwelling at Kosambi in Ghosita's Park. Now on that occasion Kakudha the Koliyan son, the Venerable Mahamoggallana's attendant, had recently died and been reborn among a certain group of mind-made [deities]. His body was two or three times the size of the fields of a Magadhan village, but he did not obstruct either himself or others with that body.Then the young deva Kakudha approached ....

If you believe certain words, you believe their hidden arguments. When you believe something is right or wrong, true of false, you believe the assumptions in the words which express the arguments. Such assumptions are often full of holes, but remain most precious to the convinced.